Dan Froomkin fired from the Washington Post

So Washington Post finally fired Froomkin. He was the writer of "White House Watch", formerly "White House Briefing", and one of the few actual journalists left with any major paper. He's also one of the editors at niemanwatchdog.com, and contributes invaluable commentary on issues relating to journalism there.

The Washington Post still cannot formulate why exactly Froomkin's column, the most commented and visited on the site for years upon years, was now redundant. He, as advertised, does the same thing towards the Obama- White House as he did the Bush- White House. And there have been no complaints about his journalistic integrity, or criticism about the substance of his writing. In fact the opposite is the case - he's been continuously lauded for providing context to the issues of the day, and for making it easier or even possible to follow the ebb and flow of the substance of Washington politics.

What do you think was the reason the Post finally pushed him out the door?
Ok, then ;)

Here's Froomkin on the role of Journalists as far as questioning authority:
fleinn - Die, Rupert Murdock!
To avoid the dangers of an unchecked executive, we we must assertively question Obama about what he's doing, why he's doing it and how he's doing it. We should insist on answers to our questions. And we should aggressively examine those assertions that strikes us as dubious. Indeed, Obama's audacious promises -- and all the hope he has inspired -- entitle us to hold him up to a higher standard than we ever held Bush to.

But we also have a chance to raise the level of discourse, which suffered badly over the past eight years. Because the Bush White House was so opaque, we became overly accustomed to superficiality and trivia in our discussions of the presidency. Obama's promise of transparency means we may actually have more substantial things to talk about. Faced with no evidence of a serious Bush policymaking apparatus, we put little effort into genuinely debating policy options. But by contrast,(...)
Read the whole thing here:
White House Watch - Change
Paul Krugman's take:

The Froomkin firing - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Now, you might think that the way things turned out — the total failure of movement conservatism in government, and the abrupt, humiliating end to the Permanent Republican Majority — would lead to some soul-searching. But that’s not how human nature works. Instead, it became more urgent than ever to assert that those who didn’t get with the program were flakes and moonbats, not worthy of being listened to, while those who believed in the right to the bitter end were “serious”.

Thus we still live in an era in which you have to have been wrong to be respectable. You’re not considered serious about national security unless you were for invading Iraq; you’re not considered a serious political analyst unless you spent the last 3 years of the Bush administration predicting a Republican comeback; you’re not considered a serious economic analyst unless you dismissed the idea that the Bush Boom, such as it was, rested on a housing bubble.

That’s why the firing of Dan Froomkin now makes a perverse sort of sense. As long as the right was in power, he was in effect the Post’s designated moonbat, someone who attracted readers but didn’t threaten the self-esteem of the self-perceived serious people at the paper. But now he looks like someone who was right when the serious people were wrong — and that means he has to go.
Last edited: